GNAT is comparing the removal of a clitoris with the removal of a man's foreskin. Although I don't agree with either practice, it's clear they are on a different scale altogether! Female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) is much more barbaric than male circumcision and both acts cannot be compared at all.

Censorship Avoidance OR Moderator Slide By Award

Again, a no brainer. The Truther post by shadz66 which breaks the forum rules wins this one. After more than 10 years, conspiracy theorists still manage to get their nonsense passed the moderators and the "smart" and "logical" people of the world.

40 Comments

GNAT is comparing the removal of a clitoris with the removal of a man's foreskin. Although I don't agree with either practice, it's clear they are on a different scale altogether! Female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) is much more barbaric than male circumcision and both acts cannot be compared at all.

I want to make sure this comment stays in the post. Don't edit it out. It's a good thing you change user names as often as you do, no issues with credibility. It's amazing how you criticize culture as part of the problem but the culture you are accustomed to skews your view of facts. looks like you aren't as immune to cultural bias as you think you are.

Odin is a punk with no guts at all, if he stood for anything he would contribute to the forum but that would require him to revele himself when hiding like a coward is more to his liking. Here are a few links to show my point:

Yes that's correct. You 'wonder what it was'. Because you don't know what it was. But yet, you find it appropriate and somehow necessary to 'theorize' about it. Something you know nothing about. But don't let the facts get in the way of your over active imagination. lmao. Theorize away!

Perhaps, but she's nowhere to be seen on this site. Her contributions are limited to banning users and comments. The last time she wrote a sentence here was eons ago. Like most good anarchists, she loves to control the show from behind the scenes and she loves to censor.

I like anarchist theory, but I find anarchists themselves to usually be the worst at practicing those theories. Take this site. First, it uses a score system which is hierarchic. Second the moderation is dubious to say the least. Yes, there are rules, but those rules are not followed when moderating. Political campaigning reigns here. It's more of a pro-democrat forum than an anarchist one. The thing with most anarchists I have encountered is that they are very hard headed, almost cult-like in many ways. Ironically, they are the ones in Occupy who crave the most power. This site is controlled by them and, although they don't like to post here, they love to keep an eye and censor the discussions and they never report back as to why. If this website was really based on anarchy it would be controlled by the community. Moderators would be rotated once in awhile. However, anarchists don't work that way. Basically, it's like having representatives without knowing their names and who have no term limits. If this site operates for 10 years during all that time jart and friends will control the show. We are observers here, contributing once in awhile and getting our comments banned often without knowing why.

The best would be for non-anarchists to take up anarchist theory and turn it into practice.

Yes, obviously. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. What is your point?

The theoretical goal of anarchy as a system is to limit power as much as possible to individuals by spreading it as much as possible throughout the community. What I'm saying is that if OWS cannot demonstrate this in practice on this website they can never hope to make it happen for a nation of 300 million.

I think anarchists are hard headed because they are dealing with mostly a theoretical system. When a system has barely been tested in practice it's basically perfect. In a sense, I think this holds them back. It's the fear of failure. My opinion is that jart is scared to really turn this site over to an anarchist type model because it might fail and poke a hole in anarchic theory. It's much easier to run it in a conventional way with moderators that never change and with a hierarchic point system. Ironically, I've used forums which were much more anarchic in their setup than this one. Forums which were truly run by the community that used them.

"Yes, there are rules, but those rules are not followed when moderating."

What makes you say that?

"The thing with most anarchists I have encountered is that they are very hard headed, almost cult-like in many ways."

Anarchist ideas are just common sense. If we'd managed to spread the ideas in a proper way, anarchism would become mainstream.

"Ironically, they are the ones in Occupy who crave the most power."

The movement has no leaders, and is becoming more and more organized. You're not making any sense.

"If this website was really based on anarchy it would be controlled by the community."

Sure, in a more ideal world. The problem is that we live in a society to a very large extent based on capitalist principles, and where a big part of the population is not even familiar with the basic principles of anarchism. This website is also not the entire Occupy Movement.

"The best would be for non-anarchists to take up anarchist theory and turn it into practice."

If the OWS community cannot be made to run this website in a communal fashion, then we are very far from having a country of 300 million people which uses anarchy as a means to structure itself. Very far indeed.

Comments and users get banned all the time for reasons which are never explained. Other users are free to campaign for Obama or post conspiracy theories both of which are against the forum rules.

The problem with the implementation of anarchy in OWS is that it's not transparent. It's always the same anarchists that go to the general assemblies because they have time, thus they are the leaders although we don't know their names and they have no term limits.

About the karma points, sorry but it's based on a system of hierarchy. This site is not a good demonstration of anarchy because of those points, and because there are only a few people running it who never change.

Anarchy will never go anywhere in practice if OWS cannot even use it in a fair and honest fashion. The theory might be nice, but so far the practice that has been shown by OWS is very dubious.

Where did I claim to be an anarchist? You've been confusing me with marthafromOTS. I'm not her. I'm Thrasymaque. I believe in anarchic philosophy, but I don't believe in anarchists themselves. They are always the first to trample on what they preach.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (9511) from Phoenix, AZ 10 minutes ago
Has anyone else noticed how "odin" and "frovikleka" never makes any contributions to the forum? It seems all he wants to do is attempt to keep OWS supporters out of the voting booth or at the decision making process as far as who does in the end win office. I am convinced this because he fears the defeat of Republicans should OWS act in it's best interest. Here are links to all posts by "both" of them:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=User%3Afroviklekahttp://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=User%3Aodin
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink